I have personally always believed that any action which has only "no progress made" as a consequence of failure in the real world should be allowed unlimited attempts in an RPG... of course, I also think it is worth noting that picking a complicated lock can take a long time even if you know what you are doing, and that fantasy scenarios are the perfect place for locks with anti-tampering devices like deadly traps or permanent sealing mechanisms connected in such a way that failure to pick the lock correctly the first time means dire consequence or that the door is no longer simply locked, but is now heavily barred so as to be sealed shut.

It's been my experience that the time it will take for a retry (I usually use 1d10 minutes) is enough incentive for the less patient members of the party to shove the thief aside and start at battering the door down.

One of the important considerations, for me, is avoiding an on/off switch.

In 3e, when the DM sets the DC for the lock, it either falls within the Rogue's Take 20 or it does not. If it does, the lock is automatically pickable (the switch is set to ON) and, if not, not (the switch is set to OFF). In an old-fashioned dungeon exploration, picking the lock may allow the players additional choices, but it isn't the only possible way to deal with a door. In a persistent environment, having to come back to a door and deal with it later isn't a bad thing.

In DCC, the Thief has a neat mechanic whereby he can improve his attempt, turning a failure into a success, which can lead to interesting choices (Should I burn Luck now to get this lock open, or should we scout around to find the key, or try to find another way through?), but not if it is clear from Level 1 onward that you just need to keep rolling until you make it....or, even worse, you need to keep rolling to determine if the switch is set to ON or OFF.

In RCFG, I used a "Three Strikes" rule, and I am strongly pulled toward the same with some checks in DCC. It allows there to be a randomness to the level of difficulty to certain tasks without the Judge having to declare them either ON or OFF.

But I am still considering options, and my mind is not set in stone. I would like to know what others think.

Echoing Raven, the Thief has a Luck ability. My instinct is to let him use it - if you allow rerolls, then this ability is devalued. Some of the best in-game moments come when players have to decide if/what and how much they will sacrifice for something (like Luck, regardless of your character class).

This immediately made me think of the "hazard" bit in the D&D5 doc. Basically, if you fail by 10 or more your REALLY blow it. It might be nice to think of it that way. If the roll is close, then you can roll again or burn luck, if its not even close, then you messed it up. In the event of a re-roll, I'd definitely make wandering encounter checks, as appropriate.

As for your backstab rule, I am totally into Warrior Deeds allowing Backstabs, but I probably wouldn't ask for a further Stealth check. I do like the idea of higher Deed rolls offering higher bonuses. Maybe Deed based backstabs could be limited ones that are auto crits for thieves, but with bonuses to hit = (Deed roll -2).

This immediately made me think of the "hazard" bit in the D&D5 doc. Basically, if you fail by 10 or more your REALLY blow it. It might be nice to think of it that way. If the roll is close, then you can roll again or burn luck, if its not even close, then you messed it up. In the event of a re-roll, I'd definitely make wandering encounter checks, as appropriate.

As for your backstab rule, I am totally into Warrior Deeds allowing Backstabs, but I probably wouldn't ask for a further Stealth check. I do like the idea of higher Deed rolls offering higher bonuses. Maybe Deed based backstabs could be limited ones that are auto crits for thieves, but with bonuses to hit = (Deed roll -2).

The problem with failure thresholds (fail by 10 or more) is that (1) there is more math involved, and (2) it doesn't remove the ON/OFF switch. If the player has a bonus of +5, and the DC is 15 or less, the switch is ON, because the player can always roll closer than 10. Meanwhile, the DC must be set to 36+ before the character both fails and knows he cannot potentially succeed (without burning Luck). Again, characters are encouraged to just keep rolling (if they can), and the Judge is encouraged to decide ahead of time whether or not he wants this particular lock to be picked (i.e., should he set the switch to ON or OFF?). More fun, IMHO, to design adventures where the dice determine outcome, and both Judge and players must be prepared for some lateral thinking.

EDIT: Oh, and that "hazard" bit is from 3.0 before it showed up again in 5e's materials. In 3e, you can suffer different penalties from a failure of 5 or more or a failure of 10 or more.

As for the Backstab rule, consider the following:

(1) You would probably not allow a Warrior to use a Deed to gain an automatic Critical.

(2) The discussion of Deeds explicitly allows for saves or other checks to be required for the Deed result to occur.

(3) You don't want the Warrior to simply become the set-up guy for the Thief in every combat, or change the Thief's forte from "stealthy guy" to "guy who stabs people after the Warrior distracts them". You don't want this to be the One Obvious Deed that gets used all the time because it is obviously so much better than everything else. A good option? Yes. The obviously optimal option in most circumstances? No. Otherwise the Warrior becomes the Thief's stooge, and the Thief becomes the mighty melee opponent who actually drops most of the foes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum